UPDATE: Reader Alex Gladd writes in to let us know that Amazon appears to be altering its standard downloadable game return policy when dealing with customer complaints about SimCity. After writing to Amazon through the "Contact Us" page to express his anger over the state of the game, Gladd got a reply stating, "as a standard policy, Games, Game Items, and Software Downloads are not returnable after purchase. However, because of the circumstances, I've made an exception and issued a refund in the amount of $54.99 [not including $5 refunded for a previously screwed up pre-order]." Amazon wasn't immediately available to respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Meanwhile, Polygon reports that EA has sent an e-mail to its various SimCity marketing partners to stop actively promoting the game through text links and other advertising through its Origin LinkShare program. "We will notify you as soon as the SimCity marketing campaigns have been resumed and our promotional links are once again live in the Linkshare interface," the note reads, in part. "We apologize for any inconveniences that this may cause, and we thank you for your cooperation."

ORIGINAL STORY

Electronic Arts has indicated that it will not be altering its usual digital refund policy in the wake of SimCity server issues that have led to access problems and scaled-back features for players that are able to log in, days after the game's North American release.

"In general we do not offer refunds on digital download games," EA tweeted through its official Origin account yesterday, directing people to the company's online policy on returns and cancellations. While downloadable games purchased in North America are not be refunded "as a general policy," EA does offer a "14-day unconditional guarantee" on any physical product sold through the Origin store. European customers, however, may be able to withdraw their downloadable purchase during a 14-day "Cooling Off period" as outlined on EA's European return policy page.

The recent tweet comes after a message posted to EA's forums by Community Manager Raven on Tuesday, stating that "[i]f you regrettably feel that we let you down, you can of course request a refund for your order... though we're currently still in the process of resolving this issue." That message has now been revised to simply say "please review our refund policy here."

A minor furor developed over the last few days when one irate customer claimed EA support had threatened to ban his Origin account merely for requesting a refund. However, the banning "threat" only came when the customer himself threatened to have his bank stop payment on the still-pending transaction. "We will not ban players for requesting refunds," EA clarified through its Origin Twitter account.

Meanwhile, EA continues to apologize for the ongoing server problems. The company is spinning the issues as a result of the unexpected, overwhelming popularity of the game. After servers filled up within hours of Tuesday's launch, "what we saw was that players were having such a good time they didn't want to leave the game, which kept our servers packed and made it difficult for new players to join," Senior Producer Kip Katsarelis said in a forum message. He went on to promise that missing game features, taken out in an effort to reduce server load, would be restored soon, but that "our number one priority is to bring stability to our servers."

In a statement obtained by Kotaku, Maxis General Manager Lucy Bradshaw noted the game's popularity, saying that 700,000 cities were created in one 24-hour period, but she admitted that it's "now evident that players across Europe and Asia are experiencing the same frustration" as American customers. Bradshaw promised to "quickly and dramatically increase the number and stability of our servers," and the company did indeed add three European servers last night.

At the same time, an internal memo circulated to EA employees by Bradshaw (and obtained by Polygon), praises the hard work the developers put into the game while admitting that the public reaction to post-launch problems is justified. "I'd like to say that it's not fair— that the game score shouldn't be punished for a server problem. But it is fair," she wrote.

A manager for EA's Korean Facebook page, meanwhile, seems to have risked angering an entire continent by mentioning that there are no local Asian servers for the game because "there is a lot of piracy in Asia, so it would be difficult for the time being" (as spotted and translated by Kotaku).

Amazon appears to be offering both retail and downloadable versions of the Standard and Limited Edition SimCity on their online store again, after they were briefly unavailable yesterday. The online retailer is still warning potential buyers up front that "[m]any customers are having issues connecting to the 'SimCity' servers. EA is actively working to resolve these issues, but at this time we do not know when the issue will be fixed."

I think that they are doing a great job of doing exactly the opposite of what they *should* be doing to resolve this problem. Ideally they would stop new sales of the product until capacity is available; offer refunds to any unsatisfied customers who would like a refund, and offer bonus items to anyone who is willing to stick through the problems.

I actually agree with Maxis that the main intention for the server connection requirement is to expand SimCity beyond the single player realm, and the DRM being a convenient side effect.

Currently they are escalating a failure to an epic failure! The consequences of their decisions will be felt in future game launches (I know I for one will not be pre-ordering anything through Origin in the future.)

Electronic Arts has indicated that it will not be altering its usual digital refund policy in the wake of SimCity server issues that have led to access problems and scaled-back features for players that are able to log in, days after the game's North American release.

Their corporate policy aside - does this not get into false advertising of features and options that they claimed to be available but have fallen short on ? Which then gets into Federal Law in the US. Which supercedes their policy. So if they do not make good on their claims then a lot of people might have cause for a Federal inquiry. EA might lose more than allowing refunds in the short term.

DragonTHC wrote:

As for North American customers, there's a three day grace period on credit card purchases. You can simply return the items and get your money back regardless of seller policy. It's the law.

Not sure what part of "North America" you are in, but that might be your bank specifically, and not a Federal Law. If I have consciously made a purchase and I cannot dispute that I did not - my bank will allow the charge to go through regardless of how I "feel" after thet purchase. If I push a stop claim on it - I have to validate that it was fraud otherwise I'm in violation of filing a false fraud claim, which then is Fed Law.

Is it really demand for the actual game that's causing the server issues? Or the workload that's being produced by what gamers are doing in the game? Somehow I suspect it's the latter of the two.

In any event, EA cannot possibly claim with a straight face that it didn't see the demand coming. Publishers are OBSESSED with pre-release tracking data, whether it's pre-orders, retail shipments or traffic to their title's Web site. I just don't see how it's possible that one of the largest game publishers in the world 1) did not have this kind of data at its disposal, and 2) use it to safely predict the server capacity it would need for SimCity,

Given that the usual reason for not refunding online is piracy, given that they have absolute control over who plays this game, if you need to be 'always on', they should be in a fantastic position to refund users, safe in the knowledge that they can just ensure that these people can't play the game.

Wow finally someone actually smartens up to all these horrible companies wrong doings. Hey maybe stupid ideas from companies that only want to rip you off can't be entrusted with the new "generation" of anything including your wallet.

Isn't the saying fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on them? I guess diablo iii was the me part.

I can only hope this results in both a class action lawsuit and a refusal by every unhappy customer to ever buy anything directly from Origin again, or any game that has always-on DRM even for single player. The only way publishers will ever stop bending us over and screwing us harder and harder is if we put our money where our mouths are and stop paying them to do it to us.

Maybe I'm a slow learner but from what I finally realize is that offline play for this game is going to be an impossible achievement. These issues with network are not caused by the DRM itself but the fact that the servers are not able to run the game code (Glassbox engine). I read somewhere that it's akin to asking for WOW to have an offline play. Logistically it just can't happen because significant portions of the game have been engineered from ground up to run only on the servers. The only way to get an "offline" play option would be to rebuild the game again. Some of the darker places on the internet forums where people discuss how to break DRM also confirm this sentiment. They're not sure if SimCity could ever be made into an offline game, therefore it's unlikely to come to TPB anytime soon. In the meantime we're at the computational mercy of their servers.

The company is spinning the issues as a result of the unexpected, overwhelming popularity of the game.

Color me skeptical. "We didn't expect that one of the historically most popular Maxis franchises, for which a new game hasn't been released for a decade, would be so popular!" Really, EA? Either you're lying, or you're admitting to your own disconnect from your customer base.

The only thing the launch of this game did for me was get me to install Sim City 4 from Steam. I then promptly googled a way to have the game run at my monitor's native resolution and away I went.

Even ignoring the always-online DRM debacle, the sizes of the cities are so ridiculously, pathetically small. That combined with having absolutely no ability to revert to prior save states made me go back to Sim City 4. A shame too, because everything I've seen about the Glassbox engine is awesome and I certainly appreciate the updated graphics. But the restrictions in both DRM form and game form are just too great to overcome.

Is it really demand for the actual game that's causing the server issues? Or the workload that's being produced by what gamers are doing in the game? Somehow I suspect it's the latter of the two.

In any event, EA cannot possibly claim with a straight face that it didn't see the demand coming. Publishers are OBSESSED with pre-release tracking data, whether it pre-orders, retail shipments or traffic to their title's Web site. I just don't see how it's possible that one of the largest game publishers in the world 1) did not have this kind of data at its disposal, and 2) use it to safely predict the server capacity it would need for SimCity,

Yes, I believe they are obsessed with data. I believe they are obsessed to the point of saying, I don't see a need to actually have capacity on our servers. We'll just see how launch goes and then we will adjust capacity once we've sold enough games.

What I want to know is, in this day and age when you can increase server capacity at the click of a mouse, why EA simply did not order up more server capacity? Cue Ned Stark.

Maybe I'm a slow learner but from what I finally realize is that offline play for this game is going to be an impossible achievement. These issues with network are not caused by the DRM itself but the fact that the servers are not able to run the game code (Glassbox engine). I read somewhere that it's akin to asking for WOW to have an offline play. Logistically it just can't happen because significant portions of the game have been engineered from ground up to run only on the servers. The only way to get an "offline" play option would be to rebuild the game again. Some of the darker places on the internet forums where people discuss how to break DRM also confirm this sentiment. They're not sure if SimCity could ever be made into an offline game, therefore it's unlikely to come to TPB anytime soon. In the meantime we're at the computational mercy of their servers.

I doubt this. They tout a feature where you can continue to run the game for a few minutes if you happen to lose your connection in the middle of a game. If they can make it run for a few minutes, they can make it run indefinitely. You couldn't take advantage of the network features, like having neighboring cities to help in areas your city is lacking and all, but there's no reason that should be required.

After servers filled up within hours of Tuesday's launch, "what we saw was that players were having such a good time they didn't want to leave the game, which kept our servers packed and made it difficult for new players to join

This is sheer stupidity. If you are insisting that your game be only playable with always on DRM then you need to ensure that each player that buys the game can play it...even if every single player decides to play at the same time. You should not be counting on players leaving the game.

It really gets on my nerves when companies try to use their strikingly grievous issues as self advertisements. "I'm sorry our servers are down, the game is just so awesome and amazingly popular that too many people want to play. Remember to go to Origin and buy a copy to see what all the craziness is about 8D!" Marketing is such garbage.

The company is spinning the issues as a result of the unexpected, overwhelming popularity of the game.

Color me skeptical. "We didn't expect that one of the historically most popular Maxis franchises, for which a new game hasn't been released for a decade, would be so popular!" Really, EA? Either you're lying, or you're admitting to your own disconnect from your customer base.

To be fair, they did go and make a substandard game, it's not their fault that most people aren't listening to the reviews and buying it anyway.

I read somewhere that it's akin to asking for WOW to have an offline play. Logistically it just can't happen because significant portions of the game have been engineered from ground up to run only on the servers. The only way to get an "offline" play option would be to rebuild the game again.

With any luck it'll become possible to run your own server. I believe that's possible with WoW as well. Then again, DRM...

It really gets on my nerves when companies try to use their strikingly grievous issues as self advertisements. "I'm sorry our servers are down, the game is just so awesome and amazingly popular that too many people want to play. Remember to go to Origin and buy a copy to see what all the craziness is about 8D!" Marketing is such garbage.

“Any retailer can sell our games, but we take direct responsibility for providing patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players. You are connecting to our servers, and we want to establish an ongoing relationship with you, to continue to give you the best possible gaming experience.”

I think it's time to admit that SimCity players are in an abusive relationship.

EA's official responses make it abundantly clear they haven't learned a thing from this, other than to perpetuate their ridiculous online-only product strategy. They are clearly not going to change course and if this amount of bad press isn't enough to get them to rethink shoveling online-only requirements on a traditionally single-player game, none will be.

It's sheer arrogance and hubris that schemes up a scenario like this and then rejects all reality in the face of total failure and instead spins the same old lies and deceit to convince themselves (and attempt to convince others) that they're actually doing the right thing to stay the course.

The consumers expected a mea culpa from the publisher and are getting a middle finger instead.

Is it really demand for the actual game that's causing the server issues? Or the workload that's being produced by what gamers are doing in the game? Somehow I suspect it's the latter of the two.

In any event, EA cannot possibly claim with a straight face that it didn't see the demand coming. Publishers are OBSESSED with pre-release tracking data, whether it pre-orders, retail shipments or traffic to their title's Web site. I just don't see how it's possible that one of the largest game publishers in the world 1) did not have this kind of data at its disposal, and 2) use it to safely predict the server capacity it would need for SimCity,

Yes, I believe they are obsessed with data. I believe they are obsessed to the point of saying, I don't see a need to actually have capacity on our servers. We'll just see how launch goes and then we will adjust capacity once we've sold enough games.

What I want to know is, in this day and age when you can increase server capacity at the click of a mouse, why EA simply did not order up more server capacity? Cue Ned Stark.

Server capacity costs money, and despite the fact that you gave your money to them, they see no need to spend that money to ensure you get what you pay for.

There is no excuse for not having enough server capacity. They knew exactly how many people preordered. Base on that and reasonable predictions based on EA's long history of selling games, they should be able have come up with a reasonable estimate on how many people would be purchase post launch.

If they did any kind of load testing at all, they would at least know a ballpark figure in terms of how much server hardware they need. They do any hardware sizing at all? Even if you know that after a couple months a lot of the activity will die down, this kind of fiasco at launch is unacceptable. People paid you for product and they expect it to work as advertised. Even if you buy and prep a bunch of extra servers knowing you wont need them 6 months down the line, its not like those servers will go to waste. They can be easily sold or re-purposed and it would save you a lot of good will on the customer end.

Instead we get this mad scramble every time. They needed to under-promise and over-deliver.

I actually agree with Maxis that the main intention for the server connection requirement is to expand SimCity beyond the single player realm, and the DRM being a convenient side effect.

This should be an option and not a requirement. I for one had no problem with previous versions of the game. I built multiple cities in different regions and connected them by roads, rail, etc. It didn't require me to be online or connected to servers to do it. Don't drink the koolaid, the MAIN reason for always online is for DRM purposes. They try and spin it with other crap statements to try and make the ugly shinier than what it is. But in any light it is still ugly.

UBI finally smartened up, and now (supposedly) are doing away with always on DRM. It';s time the rest of these schmucks do the same. This is the reason why I WON'T be buying the new SimCity. If I want to play it, I'll just break out my older game and play it.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.